Who Benefits from Tariffs?

US Steel saw its stock surge after Section 232 tariffs effectively blocked cheaper imports. CEO David Burritt earned $16 million in total compensation in 2023 while the company employed roughly 22,000 workers. The tariffs gave US Steel pricing power it hadn't had in decades — but that pricing power came directly from consumers and manufacturers who buy steel. Every construction project, every appliance, every car became more expensive. US Steel's gains are real, but they represent a direct transfer from the many to the few.

Nucor, America's largest steelmaker, posted record revenues and profits during the tariff era. In 2022, Nucor earned $8.5 billion in net income — more than triple its pre-tariff profits. The company credited "favorable pricing" — a polite way of saying tariffs let them charge more. Nucor's 31,000 employees did well too, with generous profit-sharing bonuses. But for every Nucor worker who benefited, roughly 80 workers in steel-consuming industries faced higher input costs.

Century Aluminum received a $500 million Department of Energy grant to build a new smelter in the US — the first in decades. Aluminum tariffs made domestic production viable again. This is the strongest argument for tariffs: reviving domestic capacity for national security. But the math is brutal. The aluminum tariffs cost American consumers $690,000 per job saved, according to the Peterson Institute. Century's grant is taxpayer-funded on top of the tariff tax consumers already pay.

Solar panel tariffs, first imposed in 2012 and expanded under Section 201, devastated Chinese solar manufacturers' US market share. First Solar, the largest American solar panel maker, saw its stock and revenue surge. But here's the irony: by making solar panels more expensive, tariffs actually slowed solar adoption in the US. The Solar Energy Industries Association estimated tariffs cost 62,000 American solar installation jobs and prevented $19 billion in investment. Protecting one company cost an industry.

Whirlpool lobbied hard for washing machine tariffs and celebrated when they were imposed in 2018. Within a year, washing machine prices rose 12% — about $86 per unit. Whirlpool raised prices too, not just on washers but on dryers (which weren't tariffed), proving tariffs give domestic producers cover to raise all prices. A University of Chicago study found consumers paid $815,000 per washing machine job saved. Whirlpool's stock initially jumped, then fell as higher prices dampened demand.

The federal government collected an estimated $287 billion in tariff revenue — money that comes entirely from American importers and is passed to consumers. Politicians sometimes frame this as "foreign countries paying us," but customs duties are paid at the border by US companies, who raise prices to cover the cost. It's a consumption tax that falls hardest on lower-income families who spend a larger share of income on goods. The Treasury wins, but it's American wallets funding it.

The average American household pays roughly $1,800 per year in higher prices due to tariffs, according to the Yale Budget Lab. That's more than the average electricity bill. Unlike income tax, which is progressive (the rich pay more), tariffs are deeply regressive. A family earning $25,000 loses 7.2% of their income to tariff-inflated prices. A family earning $200,000 loses just 0.9%. Tariffs are, dollar for dollar, the most regressive tax in America — and they're completely invisible on your receipt.

When the US imposed tariffs, trading partners retaliated — and they targeted American agriculture with surgical precision. China slapped 25% tariffs on soybeans, devastating Midwest farmers. The EU targeted bourbon, Harley-Davidsons, and agricultural products. Total agricultural export losses exceeded $27 billion. The government responded with $28 billion in emergency farm bailouts — more than double the auto industry bailout of 2009. Farmers didn't want subsidies. They wanted their markets back. Many never recovered.

Steel and aluminum tariffs alone added an estimated $2,800 to the price of a new car. But the auto industry faces a double hit: tariffs on parts from Mexico, Canada, and Asia raise production costs, while tariffs on finished vehicles from the EU, Japan, and South Korea reduce competition and let domestic automakers raise prices. The result is American consumers paying thousands more per vehicle while auto companies face higher input costs and disrupted supply chains. Jobs in the auto sector have declined, not grown, since tariffs began.

The 10% aluminum tariff costs the American beer and beverage industry $347 million per year in higher can costs. The Beer Institute — representing 2.1 million American beer jobs — called aluminum tariffs "a tax on American beer drinkers." For every one aluminum smelter job the tariff saves, roughly 40 jobs in downstream industries (canning, brewing, packaging) face higher costs. Some craft breweries switched to more expensive glass bottles. Others simply raised prices. The consumer pays either way.

Walmart, Amazon, and Target have the scale and supply chain flexibility to absorb or offset tariff costs. Small businesses don't. A survey by the National Federation of Independent Business found 44% of small importers couldn't pass costs to customers without losing sales. Many small retailers, manufacturers, and restaurants operate on razor-thin margins — a 25-50% tariff on inputs can mean the difference between profit and closure. Tariffs are a regressive tax on business size as much as on consumer income.

This is the most damning number in the tariff debate. Families earning $25,000 per year spend 7.2% of their income on tariff-inflated prices. Families earning $200,000+ spend just 0.9%. That's an 8:1 ratio of regressivity — worse than sales tax, worse than payroll tax, worse than nearly any other tax in America. Why? Because lower-income families spend almost all their income on goods (food, clothing, electronics), while wealthy families save and invest more. Tariffs tax consumption, and the poor consume the highest share of their income.